-post it on the comments seemed excessive even for this blog. So I put it here.
As usual, the depth of your post is such to be sure I understood just 1 / 3 of the message you're trying to convey.
However,
by man in the street, I think
:
Perhaps art can best represent the link between public and private sectors. In fact, the experience of intimate, private, not neutral. As I said in a post of pilot, art can not project themselves politically even when it seems to convey an explicit political content.
small parenthesis
This is true because the political content for excellence is any perception of the world and society, for his reflections on the practice and theory felt by the individual. This should always be remembered. We should not necessarily draw the struggle between world views in the Cold War because it becomes apparent, nor terrorism, nor armed struggle (but here it is revealed that even the dumb).
CLOSED PARENTHESIS
In short, any private experience conceals the attitude of the subject and the social environment in which they live. Including private non-neutrality of the event, steeped in social relations, conventions (including language) and so on, then it is clear that the choice of the event represented and how to represent, along with the trial and disposition d ' author's mind, are the elements of its position, as implied, unspoken, unconscious, and yet observe and analyze. In the work
8E1 / 2, Fellini talking about this. The dialectical counterpart of the director-protagonist in the film, is just a critic. The assessment of these on film is merciless: lack the critical intellectual, the film is a mere subjective play of events in which you can not find a truly liberal political position.
He says the critic (cited)
"at first sight is plain to see that the lack of an idea problem, or if you want a philosophical premise, the film makes a suite of episodes absolutely free of charge, can also Maybe funny to the extent of their realism ambiguo.Ci wonders what the authors really mean. They want us to think? They want us to fear? The game shows from the beginning a poverty of poetic inspiration [...]"
And again, referring to a particular episode of the film:
"What does it mean? it's just a character in your childhood memories. It has nothing to do with a real critical consciousness .[...] His little wet memories of nostalgia, its evocation harmless, and basically emotional reactions are an accomplice. "
Finally, inexorable
" We intellectuals have a duty to remain lucid until the end. There are already too many unnecessary things in the world. No need to add another disorder to disorder .[...] Destroy is better than creating when you create a few necessary things. And then there's something so clear and fair in the world who has the right to live .[...] We are suffocated by the words, images, sounds that have no reason to live. Coming from the vacuum and go into space. For an artist truly worthy of the name should not ask for this act of loyalty: to educate silence .[...] If you can not have everything, nothing is true perfection ... "The
response to the acute critical Fellini is clear: Fellini made the film.
"This confusion is me, not me as I should be. Telling the truth: what you do not know, I try, I have not found it yet. Only then I feel alive. "
Who is right?
If Gingko allows me to superimposition its position with that of the critic (forcibly, I am aware, citing the Situationist arises well beyond the coarse position of the critic),
I would stay in the defense. (There are a thousand straining, for example, Gingko spoke specifically of poetry, and I do not know what it was referring to can be extended to the film industry)
In defending what Fellini.
What saves the film by Fellini is the fact that the problem is philosophical, even if it receives a response at least ambiguous. It is called a doubt, misunderstanding, creeping nihilism. The answer that I seem to find in Fellini is a way to resolve the issue lies in the acceptance of this human condition. Find enjoyment in the draw. It 's a win surrendering. E 'individual response. There is no progress. The director-star agrees to be beaten by history, passive. The inability to assume a position of activist fervor translates into the inevitable choice to sign the package that history and the life they gave us. You subscribe to oblivion, and die.
And it's still a way to respond, quite decent. It 's a choice but to pay a substantial size intimate and individualistic.
The man is alone, no matter how many participants make their own affairs.
has a second level of interest also. The sensitivity of the author, that vomits on her privacy, provides the material. Precious material, material to ponder. Sometimes it is important to re-live through the experiences of others to guess things. If only for this, such works are crucial.
Then, oh, the film is directed by Fellini with such mastery that would be worth anything anyway. Of course most of the disaster that appears on the rooms every week. Ensure that those images are just poison.
This is the moral of the sermon.
